Trump's support for gun control measures after Parkland.

[johngaltshrugged]

Only if you support a demagogue overthrowing our elections.

No, I do not support Pedo Joe at all. He is a traitor to the country & should be forced to pay for his treason. As should all involved in this overthrowing of our elections

 

[jknowgood]

You would/will bitch if I answer or I don't answer.

So did Putin intentionally flood US Social Media in an attempt to mislead the US with misinformation?

My Answer: Yes.
Your Answer: ?????? Your turn to answer, don't be a tool and not answer.

Wasn't Putin, it was Hillary that started the lie with the help of the fbi and doj.

 

[pknopp]

Yeah, that version isn't the version the Founding Fathers wrote.....

Yes it is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes it is.

No, it's not.

The reality is that the Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment for a reason.

You have to understand what they saw rights as, and what they wanted to achieve with the Amendment in order to understand what they saw the Amendment as.

 

[pknopp]

No, it's not.

The reality is that the Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment for a reason.

You have to understand what they saw rights as, and what they wanted to achieve with the Amendment in order to understand what they saw the Amendment as.

They did have a reason.

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[frigidweirdo]

They did have a reason.

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

Yes, HOWEVER the 2A wasn't designed to give ALL ARMS to the people.

You have to understand it was to PROTECT THE MILITIA and through protecting the militia you therefore protected the Constitution and the country.

Problem is if you have a militia that has too much power, it could take over the country, as seen in many Latin American countries in the past few hundred years.

They wanted a BALANCE. Yes, people have guns. But no, they don't have cannons, they don't have heavy weaponry. If the militia needs heavy weaponry, then the state or the feds can provide that. But not individuals.
In the militia act of 1792, which lasted until the Dick Act in 1903, you find that people were expected to arms themselves, but not with cannon.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack."

 

[pknopp]

Yes, HOWEVER the 2A wasn't designed to give ALL ARMS to the people.

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

 

[okfine]

I didn't say it was a new rule, dumbass. I didn't say you violated the board rules.

But you did leave out the part that proved you wrong. That's because you're a chickenshit.

You do this as a constant. You inject BS and fail at wiping it up.

 

[daveman]

Wrong.

This is a lie.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with ‘deterring’ a ‘despotic government.’

And no one is advocating for firearm regulatory measures that are un-Constitutional.

Addressing the issue of gun crime and violence is not ‘moving in a direction towards despotism’; that fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Try reading the real Constitution, not the one you leftists use, which says "whatever leftists want is a-okay":.

 

[daveman]

You do this as a constant. You inject BS and fail at wiping it up.

Sheer projection. Run along, kid.

 

[daveman]

Yes, HOWEVER the 2A wasn't designed to give ALL ARMS to the people.

You have to understand it was to PROTECT THE MILITIA and through protecting the militia you therefore protected the Constitution and the country.

Problem is if you have a militia that has too much power, it could take over the country, as seen in many Latin American countries in the past few hundred years.

They wanted a BALANCE. Yes, people have guns. But no, they don't have cannons, they don't have heavy weaponry. If the militia needs heavy weaponry, then the state or the feds can provide that. But not individuals.
In the militia act of 1792, which lasted until the Dick Act in 1903, you find that people were expected to arms themselves, but not with cannon.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack."

Privately-owned warships were a thing back then.

You okay with it now?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The problem here is that they have the "spirit of resistance", like Timothy McVeigh. But they don't have the spirit of democracy. They vote, but in elections there isn't much good viable choice, and people who represent special interests get elected rather than people representing the people.

 

[pknopp]

The problem here is that they have the "spirit of resistance", like Timothy McVeigh. But they don't have the spirit of democracy. They vote, but in elections there isn't much good viable choice, and people who represent special interests get elected rather than people representing the people.

No argument there.